In the court of law, ambiguity is grounds for dismissal of a case.
Everything is ambiguous to some extent, if there was no ambiguity at all then the case would never even get to trial, a Judge would make summary judgement one way or another.
It's exactly when things are ambiguous that they go to trial because the final ruling resolves the ambiguity. That's why that you can't understand the law in a country like the US or the UK by just reading legislation, you also have to know about all the cases which subsequently refined the ambiguities in interpretation of that legislation.
When a car maker becomes the first maker to introduce exclusively 4 cylinder engines ( and others start doing the same), is that considered "copying"?
Well you can only sue someone if they violate your patent, and to get a patent in the first place you must pass a non-obviousness test.
What is non-obvious? Well the criteria varies from country to country, but what it amounts to is, imagine a person knowledgable in the field, but otherwise unimaginative and dull, and ask whether they could have come up with it.
What's happened is that Apple had spent a long time prior to the original 2007 iPhone launch developing the iPhone's hardware and OS, they tweaked and perfected it, and have built upon it ever since. All the other phone manufacturers where years behind in catching up whilst Apple gained ground in features and functionality whilst using a fast, reliable and intuitive piece of hardware/software. Didn't Steve say in the first iPhone keynote "...We're at least 5 years ahead of any of phone company"?
So with Apple setting the bar so high in the smartphone arena and gaining popularity every quarter companies like Samsung need to have striking similarities to the iPhone to appeal to what "Average Joe" feels is the standard in high-tech smartphones, ie, look, feel, OS, features. If they don't incorperate this stuff, no-one will buy it. Apple has defined the new standard.
The other smartphone companies won't shift the units unless they take their time to re-invent the phone, like Apple did with the 1st gen iPhone. All the time they copy they will be slated and pitched as "...this is the next iPhone killer!" which they never are.
I don't think they are stealing in as much as they're desperately trying to keep some market share, they're copying Apple's formulae, it won't work, people see through it!
Everyone I know who has a tendancy to be non-conformist gets a Samsung or HTC, and when they use my iPhone always say.. "yeah, actually, they're pretty good aren't they"!
Samsung has a case of copying competitors products. That is why Sharp sued Samsung and forced a settlement out of Samsung.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme
The copying here is REALLY blatant, and repeated, and ongoing. Check out their iBooks clone app on YouTube, too. Right down to the shelves and the specific kind of page-turn effect.
You can?t say ?every clock icon looks like that? or ?every smartphone? looks like that or ?every tablet cover looks like that," because it?s not true. All clocks are similar, and all phones are similar... but they need not be THAT similar. And coincidences happen too... but not THAT many coincidences.
I can see why Apple needs to send a message to all companies that, if nothing else, they?ll create trouble for those who copy too blatantly. AND that being a component supplier doesn?t grant you immunity for your choices.
Honestly, buy a Sharp especially if you are buying LED. Sharp makes the panels (Samsung only makes some). Sharp adds a four color pixel. The bezel looks very Apple like. The picture is better. Go into Sears and compare next to one another, and compare the reviews on Amazon.
Further, Samsung uses edge lightening in its LED TVs where the LEDs are only along the edge of the TV. Sharp largely uses full array, where the LEDs are spread out (this is better).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Oak
Samsung is pretty sad. I was going to buy a Samsung TV before all this went down, but no way now. The company is devoid of any innovation.
The Galaxy 7" was a POS. Still can't believe they dumped that crap on the market
This will give you a full breakdown on the various ways which Apple is accusing Samsung of copying and how none of them would apply to your 4 cylinder engine example.
Honestly, buy a Sharp especially if you are buying LED. Sharp makes the panels (Samsung only makes some). Sharp adds a four color pixel. The bezel looks very Apple like. The picture is better. Go into Sears and compare next to one another, and compare the reviews on Amazon.
Further, Samsung uses edge lightening in its LED TVs where the LEDs are only along the edge of the TV. Sharp largely uses full array, where the LEDs are spread out (this is better).
I would also add that my 1080p Samsung screen occludes around 20 pixels on every edge with the bezel. Maybe it's just me but in my opinion that ceased to be acceptable when the CRT was abandoned.
If that's the best Apple can come up with, they're doomed. A clock looks like a clock.
Uh, did you not see the photos!?
Same covers, same keyboard "dock", the damned connector even looks like an iPod dock connector!
The "home" screen looks exactly alike, the overall shape and design of the hardware look the same! Are you serious? Are they serious!? If that's not trying to fool people into thinking that the products are the same, then they are either dumb or blind!
It is understandable to get SOME things similar, that happens, but seriously, when you add up everything, it's blatantly obvious that Samsung has attempted to copy the entire look and feel as best they could.
If that's the best Apple can come up with, they're doomed. A clock looks like a clock.
Just face it. You are a deluded fanboy and you clearly suffer from an inferiority complex combined with possible masculinity issues, otherwise you would never have bothered to sign up and post your first dumb comment here.
I happen to think that Android is complete garbage and most people who use it are complete morons, or just cheapskates for ever choosing such a failed and buggy, fragmented pile of turd, but I would never waste my time in signing up to an Android forum and troll.
Comments
When a car maker becomes the first maker to introduce exclusively 4 cylinder engines ( and others start doing the same), is that considered "copying"?
Perhaps the definition of "copy" vs "competition" should be legally defined in the court of law.
How do you define what the threshold is then? What is considered too much? What is considered too little?
Perception is different for everyone.
One person may say a color looks brown, the other may say its a dark yellow.
Like that judge said about Pornography. I can't define it, but I'll know when I see it.
Very Chinese of you to say that.
I haven't listed the other more ridiculous claims the Koreans made yet. That's also pretty Chinese of me.
I think the problem is that Samsung actually thinks that copying IS competition.
That is pretty sad if true.
Like that judge said about Pornography. I can't define it, but I'll know when I see it.
In the court of law, ambiguity is grounds for dismissal of a case.
In the court of law, ambiguity is grounds for dismissal of a case.
Everything is ambiguous to some extent, if there was no ambiguity at all then the case would never even get to trial, a Judge would make summary judgement one way or another.
It's exactly when things are ambiguous that they go to trial because the final ruling resolves the ambiguity. That's why that you can't understand the law in a country like the US or the UK by just reading legislation, you also have to know about all the cases which subsequently refined the ambiguities in interpretation of that legislation.
When a car maker becomes the first maker to introduce exclusively 4 cylinder engines ( and others start doing the same), is that considered "copying"?
Well you can only sue someone if they violate your patent, and to get a patent in the first place you must pass a non-obviousness test.
What is non-obvious? Well the criteria varies from country to country, but what it amounts to is, imagine a person knowledgable in the field, but otherwise unimaginative and dull, and ask whether they could have come up with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventi...on-obviousness
A clock looks like a clock? Hands down the dumbest statement of the week.
AndroidInsider makes it blatantly clear the position the poster will always take.
I haven't listed the other more ridiculous claims the Koreans made yet. That's also pretty Chinese of me.
There are not enough hours in the day
The Galaxy 7" was a POS. Still can't believe they dumped that crap on the market
AndroidInsider makes it blatantly clear the position the poster will always take.
There are other clock designs.
Palm made one that looks nothing like iOS but is still attractive. If a near-broke company could make something new than Samsung has no excuse.
If that's the best Apple can come up with, they're doomed. A clock looks like a clock.
It does? That's funny, because there appear to be quite a few options available.
So with Apple setting the bar so high in the smartphone arena and gaining popularity every quarter companies like Samsung need to have striking similarities to the iPhone to appeal to what "Average Joe" feels is the standard in high-tech smartphones, ie, look, feel, OS, features. If they don't incorperate this stuff, no-one will buy it. Apple has defined the new standard.
The other smartphone companies won't shift the units unless they take their time to re-invent the phone, like Apple did with the 1st gen iPhone. All the time they copy they will be slated and pitched as "...this is the next iPhone killer!" which they never are.
I don't think they are stealing in as much as they're desperately trying to keep some market share, they're copying Apple's formulae, it won't work, people see through it!
Everyone I know who has a tendancy to be non-conformist gets a Samsung or HTC, and when they use my iPhone always say.. "yeah, actually, they're pretty good aren't they"!
The copying here is REALLY blatant, and repeated, and ongoing. Check out their iBooks clone app on YouTube, too. Right down to the shelves and the specific kind of page-turn effect.
You can?t say ?every clock icon looks like that? or ?every smartphone? looks like that or ?every tablet cover looks like that," because it?s not true. All clocks are similar, and all phones are similar... but they need not be THAT similar. And coincidences happen too... but not THAT many coincidences.
I can see why Apple needs to send a message to all companies that, if nothing else, they?ll create trouble for those who copy too blatantly. AND that being a component supplier doesn?t grant you immunity for your choices.
Further, Samsung uses edge lightening in its LED TVs where the LEDs are only along the edge of the TV. Sharp largely uses full array, where the LEDs are spread out (this is better).
Samsung is pretty sad. I was going to buy a Samsung TV before all this went down, but no way now. The company is devoid of any innovation.
The Galaxy 7" was a POS. Still can't believe they dumped that crap on the market
When a car maker becomes the first maker to introduce exclusively 4 cylinder engines ( and others start doing the same), is that considered "copying"?
Perhaps the definition of "copy" vs "competition" should be legally defined in the court of law.
You seem to be pretty uninformed on this topic, can I suggest that you go away and read thisismynext http://thisismynext.com/2011/04/19/a...sung-analysis/
This will give you a full breakdown on the various ways which Apple is accusing Samsung of copying and how none of them would apply to your 4 cylinder engine example.
Honestly, buy a Sharp especially if you are buying LED. Sharp makes the panels (Samsung only makes some). Sharp adds a four color pixel. The bezel looks very Apple like. The picture is better. Go into Sears and compare next to one another, and compare the reviews on Amazon.
Further, Samsung uses edge lightening in its LED TVs where the LEDs are only along the edge of the TV. Sharp largely uses full array, where the LEDs are spread out (this is better).
I would also add that my 1080p Samsung screen occludes around 20 pixels on every edge with the bezel. Maybe it's just me but in my opinion that ceased to be acceptable when the CRT was abandoned.
...trolling and whining...
Obviously, the weekend holiday is giving this Techstud wannabe and impersonator time to really put thought in his statement...
If that's the best Apple can come up with, they're doomed. A clock looks like a clock.
Uh, did you not see the photos!?
Same covers, same keyboard "dock", the damned connector even looks like an iPod dock connector!
The "home" screen looks exactly alike, the overall shape and design of the hardware look the same! Are you serious? Are they serious!? If that's not trying to fool people into thinking that the products are the same, then they are either dumb or blind!
It is understandable to get SOME things similar, that happens, but seriously, when you add up everything, it's blatantly obvious that Samsung has attempted to copy the entire look and feel as best they could.
If that's the best Apple can come up with, they're doomed. A clock looks like a clock.
Just face it. You are a deluded fanboy and you clearly suffer from an inferiority complex combined with possible masculinity issues, otherwise you would never have bothered to sign up and post your first dumb comment here.
I happen to think that Android is complete garbage and most people who use it are complete morons, or just cheapskates for ever choosing such a failed and buggy, fragmented pile of turd, but I would never waste my time in signing up to an Android forum and troll.